2008 Focus SECOND in Consumer Reports Comparo

[ShockFX]

Those are risky behaviours that contribute to higher insurance costs. The first two also put you at higher risk to be in an accident which could affect others for more than just monetarily. The argument is no different than the one you're making.

 

They are similar. The difference is that if I get in a car accident my rates double or triple. If I am obese and get diabetes my rates stay the same. The risk is the same, but the result after the "event" (accident/onset of diabetes) is different. Also, car insurance varies by age and gender and location.

 

A red wine in moderation has proven health benefits. Drinking alcohol in and of itself is no more risky than eating fast foot. It's doing in excess that is the problem. I understand that addiction does exist, but when I see people claiming food and video games are addictions that need treatment I cringe.

 

I'm kind of torn on this, your point is valid, but in a sense I still disagree.

 

I suppose if I speed I can't tell other people to stop their own risky behavior. I could argue speeding has a potential benefit (get somewhere quicker) where being obese has no benefits, but that seems a bit hollow. You can also get ticketed for speeding, but not for being obese. Meh, since I can't completely separate them I'm gonna say well played Tomservo and I'm done with this thread.

[Deanh]

They are similar. The difference is that if I get in a car accident my rates double or triple. If I am obese and get diabetes my rates stay the same. The risk is the same, but the result after the "event" (accident/onset of diabetes) is different. Also, car insurance varies by age and gender and location.

 

A red wine in moderation has proven health benefits. Drinking alcohol in and of itself is no more risky than eating fast foot. It's doing in excess that is the problem. I understand that addiction does exist, but when I see people claiming food and video games are addictions that need treatment I cringe.

 

I'm kind of torn on this, your point is valid, but in a sense I still disagree.

 

I suppose if I speed I can't tell other people to stop their own risky behavior. I could argue speeding has a potential benefit (get somewhere quicker) where being obese has no benefits, but that seems a bit hollow. You can also get ticketed for speeding, but not for being obese. Meh, since I can't completely separate them I'm gonna say well played Tomservo and I'm done with this thread.

screw red wine in moderation...BRING IT ON!....my two cents on a seemingly lost thread....

[RichardJensen]

if I ... have good genetics

Y'know, it's not just the obese that have problems controlling their mouths.

 

 

 

 

You have apparently decided that smug self-satisfaction--an attitude that oozes out of everything you post here--is a viable substitute for real happiness, and for that, I pity you.

 

Your belief that you have things all figured out (at the age of 23) is not going to endear you to many people the rest of your life, and if someone morbidly obese figures that it's okay, if it's okay with him, then more's the same for you. You live in a very small and two-dimensional world, and if you fail to ever see the world outside, mentally, you are as limited and as sick as any man you would deem 'fat'. You may live longer, but you will never really live. There is a vast world outside your perceptions of it, and all of it is closed to you.

 

Sure, it doesn't cost you money, or anyone else money, but it makes 'money' the most important thing in your life--money, and what money can do for you, and that costs you-----well, life in general.

[ShockFX]

Y'know, it's not just the obese that have problems controlling their mouths.

You have apparently decided that smug self-satisfaction--an attitude that oozes out of everything you post here--is a viable substitute for real happiness, and for that, I pity you.

 

Your belief that you have things all figured out (at the age of 23) is not going to endear you to many people the rest of your life, and if someone morbidly obese figures that it's okay, if it's okay with him, then more's the same for you. You live in a very small and two-dimensional world, and if you fail to ever see the world outside, mentally, you are as limited and as sick as any man you would deem 'fat'. You may live longer, but you will never really live. There is a vast world outside your perceptions of it, and all of it is closed to you.

 

Sure, it doesn't cost you money, or anyone else money, but it makes 'money' the most important thing in your life--money, and what money can do for you, and that costs you-----well, life in general.

 

Annonymous internets != me in real life. There is no need to be humble on the internet, you'll never meet me, and if you do you wouldn't know this was me. Hell, never know, we might have met before.

 

I have no problem being completely over the top. Both sides can learn from each other. And unlike other people on this board, I can admit when I am wrong.

 

I'm not all about money. Not even close. The fact that you reduce the argument to that proves you don't know what I'm saying. I was talking about incentives and disincentives for being obese. Yes, I also said I dislike having to share in those costs, to say otherwise would be lying. The easiest way to break the system down is to relate it to money because everyone can understand that.

[RichardJensen]

Annonymous internets != me in real life. There is no need to be humble on the internet, you'll never meet me, and if you do you wouldn't know this was me. Hell, never know, we might have met before.

 

I have no problem being completely over the top. Both sides can learn from each other. And unlike other people on this board, I can admit when I am wrong.

 

I'm not all about money. Not even close. The fact that you reduce the argument to that proves you don't know what I'm saying. I was talking about incentives and disincentives for being obese. Yes, I also said I dislike having to share in those costs, to say otherwise would be lying. The easiest way to break the system down is to relate it to money because everyone can understand that.

"There is no need to be humble on the internet"

 

That's true. As long as you do not consider humility to be a positive attribute worth cultivating for its own merits.

 

"I'm not all about money."

 

It comes up quite often with you, though. You, earlier, equated more money with freedom of choice, asserting that, all other things being equal, someone with more money would be happier. This time around, when pressed, you said that your objection to obesity was having to pay for it.

 

Now other things are important to you of course, I wouldn't strip you of common humanity, but you do bring up money fairly often for someone who disclaims it as a dominant factor in his makeup.

 

------

 

Frankly, you have a lot to learn about people. Just like me.

 

Instead of being irked at the chubby couple ordering the Big Mac value meal with a Diet Coke (some people prefer the flavor), maybe you should ponder why it is that they're ordering it.

 

Stop thinking about it as a heart attack you'll have to pay for sooner or later. Start looking at it as a puzzle--as a question about what makes us who we are. Don't say, "evolutionary imperative--we crave grease and salt," because one of the hallmarks of humanity is our ability to exceed the bare necessities of survival of the fittest and all that.

[TomServo92]

They are similar. The difference is that if I get in a car accident my rates double or triple.

 

Ahhh but if you had an accident in which someone was maimed or killed, you're insurance company will have to pay out alot of money. Your rates, even doubled or tripled, will NOT recover that payout. Guess where it comes from? All the other insured people who NOTHING to do with that accident via higher rates.

[ShockFX]

"There is no need to be humble on the internet"

 

That's true. As long as you do not consider humility to be a positive attribute worth cultivating for its own merits.

 

"I'm not all about money."

 

It comes up quite often with you, though. You, earlier, equated more money with freedom of choice, asserting that, all other things being equal, someone with more money would be happier. This time around, when pressed, you said that your objection to obesity was having to pay for it.

 

Now other things are important to you of course, I wouldn't strip you of common humanity, but you do bring up money fairly often for someone who disclaims it as a dominant factor in his makeup.

 

------

 

Frankly, you have a lot to learn about people. Just like me.

 

Instead of being irked at the chubby couple ordering the Big Mac value meal with a Diet Coke (some people prefer the flavor), maybe you should ponder why it is that they're ordering it.

 

Stop thinking about it as a heart attack you'll have to pay for sooner or later. Start looking at it as a puzzle--as a question about what makes us who we are. Don't say, "evolutionary imperative--we crave grease and salt," because one of the hallmarks of humanity is our ability to exceed the bare necessities of survival of the fittest and all that.

 

I thought using money was less offensive than saying I find obese people disgusting to look at.

And my freedom of choice argument was not tailored around money. I said a person is happier making an obvious choice than being told to do something. It broke into money from there as I attempted to quantify it. I find it easier to use money to quantify and argument than purely use my opinion.

[630land]

There is no epidemic, I remember in the 60s and 70s there were about the same or more 'overweight' people around. We got lots of cheap and available food. The activists want to force change and use Global Warming and Obesity epidemic as an excuse to eleimate cars, suburbs, restaurants, and basically free choice.

[RichardJensen]

I thought using money was less offensive than saying I find obese people disgusting to look at.

Still about you? Either they cost you money or you don't like looking at them.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Still about you? Either they cost you money or you don't like looking at them.

 

When new Californian laws of 43.7 MPG for pick-ups come in Richard, what are the big folk going to drive?

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...0357/1148/rss25

Edited October 6, 2007 by Ford Jellymoulds

[Blueblood]

There is no epidemic, I remember in the 60s and 70s there were about the same or more 'overweight' people around. We got lots of cheap and available food. The activists want to force change and use Global Warming and Obesity epidemic as an excuse to eleimate cars, suburbs, restaurants, and basically free choice.

 

Simply ridiculous, obesity has been rising faster and faster every year, you're out to lunch..

[twintornados]

Ahhh, poor Focus....I hardly knew ye

[Watchdevil]

When new Californian laws of 43.7 MPG for pick-ups come in Richard, what are the big folk going to drive?

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...0357/1148/rss25

 

A Focus with a single centered wide driver's seat and steering wheel...

 

And it will have a Mercury companion called the Jenny Craig Edition with an incentive when you reach your ideal weight loss they give you the passenger seat as reward...

[Noah Harbinger]

I always chuckled when I first got here....first thing I noticed was just the outright size of people, some not even overweight.....but the funniest was going to a McDonalds or a Jack in the Box, they were novelties to me as new Zealand fast food at the time consisted of Fish and Chips and toasted Sandwiches....anyway, back to the hilarity....i would sit in the line and watch "larger" people ordering 3 quarter pounders WITH cheese, 2 large French fries...AND....YOU GUESSED IT....a DIET coke.... UNBELEIVABLE!

 

Well ya gotta start SOMEWHERE.... Assuming he's ordering for a family of three and only eating 1 quarter pounder with cheese and fries, that's 1080 calories. A 32 ounce soda would add (32 oz * 66% full subtracting ice * 120 calories / 8 oz = ) 317 calories -- that would increase his calorie intake by a third! Given the choice, I'd rather have the fries than the soda anytime ( I rarely drink it ).

 

If you work in an active occupation, a quarter pounder & large fries wouldn't be an excessive intake.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

A Focus with a single centered wide driver's seat and steering wheel...

 

And it will have a Mercury companion called the Jenny Craig Edition with an incentive when you reach your ideal weight loss they give you the passenger seat as reward...

 

That’s OK if there is only 2 of you, but what if you have a family of 6 fatties, Focus being the only car in Fords line-up will be 43 MPG Californian compliant, maybe Ford need to offer a Caravan as a optional extra in California.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...0357/1148/rss25

 

Edited October 6, 2007 by Ford Jellymoulds

[NickF1011]

When new Californian laws of 43.7 MPG for pick-ups come in Richard, what are the big folk going to drive?

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...0357/1148/rss25

 

Ummm...it's not 43.7 for pickups. It's 43.7 average for cars and light trucks...which means they just need to sell a crapload of 1.4 cylinder Fiestas to make up for it. Of course, eventually even California's residents will revolt when they realize their eco-driven agenda will prevent them from buying a Suburban to commute 3 hours to work in each day.

[Pioneer]

What are they going to haul building materials around in? Converted Prius's?

[NickF1011]

What are they going to haul building materials around in? Converted Prius's?

 

Maybe Ford will just stuff every F-series it sells full of 8000 lbs of ballast and a 12 cylinder diesel to make it a heavy duty truck instead of light duty. That would do wonders for the environment.

[Biker16]

The bias towards the C1 is evedient all over BON and car rags. The c170 wasnt 'super outdated' to begin with, and the 2008 shows in tests that it is not a "Cavalier" type dated car.

 

that the 2005 Focus was

 

the 2008 basically did alot of things that were done in 2004 to make the C1 focus.

 

 

The question is if we had this car in 2005 could it have made a difference. this basically is C170 Focus at higher cost than the C1 focus.

[Biker16]

If C1 Focus was here, it would have been watered down anyway, to keep costs down. And the critics would have called it the 'mini Five Hundred' with its boring looks. Also, the hatchbacks would still not have sold well.

 

Shoulda woulda coulda all day, reality is now, and the '08 is getting good reviews from unbiased soruces [CR, AutoWeek]

 

Edited October 7, 2007 by Biker16

[RichardJensen]

Maybe Ford will just stuff every F-series it sells full of 8000 lbs of ballast and a 12 cylinder diesel to make it a heavy duty truck instead of light duty. That would do wonders for the environment.

Humorously possible....

 

Already, the old Class 1 (0-6000lbs) / Class 2 (6001-10000lbs) distinction has been eclipsed by today's half tons which can have GVWRs of around 7000lbs. As a result, EPA regs now include vehicles that were once out of its Class 1 purview.

 

Bumping truck GVWRs outside CARB regulation isn't entirely out of the question (although, as with CARB's EV mandate from the early 90s, we can expect a lot of noise and then the inevitable compromise).

[taxman100]

Americans use 2-3 times more energy per day than Europeans. Is our standard of living 2-3 times higher? No, it is not. Therefore, a problem exists.

 

I could find a ton of research that shows we have a lower life expectancy, higher risk of obesity, etc. Saying Americans are lazy is relative, saying they are fat is a fact.

 

Standard of living is all relative - you can find statistics that show Americans live in much larger homes, with more square footage per person. To some, that is considered a higher standard of living. To others, it does not. There are opportunities in nearly every large American city to live in an urban area with smaller living quarters, but shorter commutes, etc. Most Americans prefer the suburban lifestyle.

 

On health statistics, it also depends on how they are measured - what segments of society are included. In Europe, they have huge "guest worker" programs - are they included since they are not citizens?

[bri719]

Haha! but OBJECTION! The Focus should win because it doesn't have a FUCKED UP GAUGE SET UP, or an INTERIOR MADE FOR A REDNECK PONTIAC FAN.

 

 

[bri719]

No, but that is irrelevant to my point that the Mazda would have killed the last 4 years of comparisons except this year if it was a Toyota.

 

 

except this is CR we're talking about, not any performance rag. this is written to people buying cars based upon 3 factors: 1. fewest red dots 2. price 3. any one of the following: how well baby seat fits in the back and/or number of airbags.

[bri719]

Americans can't have the C1 Focus because we are fatter on average than Europeans. I seriously only think some cars are popular (Impala, Monte Carlo, CV, Big SUVS) in the US because of all the overweight people that need big cars. I can't imagine some of the people I've seen squeezing into a Mondeo, let alone a C1 Focus.

 

 

I cannot disagree as the number of large hispanic housewives driving 2007 Yukons and full-sized crew cab pickup trucks in this area outnumbers every other car by at least double.